-re is not SI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]>
*Reply-To: *<[email protected]>
*Date: *Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
*To: *"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *[USMA:44848] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I don't understand their short-sightedness in preferring the -er
spelling over the -re. They should prefer the spelling that is already
accepted in the English speaking world. Since English is already the
international language of trade and SI is the international language of
measurement, than there should be harmonization and agreement as to
spellings, at least in terms of technical use.
As I noted in a previous post, there are logical reasons for preferring
the -re spelling for metre and litre. Don't the people at the NIST
understand logic?
I'm sure the person who made the decision at ASTM to prefer the -er
spelling didn't understand the logic of the -re spelling either.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* John M. Steele <[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:43:25 AM
*Subject:* [USMA:44844] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I would agree that both spellings are acceptable in the US. NIST SP330
simply says the -er spellings are preferred. (Just as l and L can be
used as the symbol for liter, but L is preferred.)
I am a bit surprised by ASTM. They are one of the professional
organizations that jointly publish SI10. There, they go along with -er
spelling. Not that either is wrong, but they are inconsistent. Do any
of the pages give a rationale?
--- On *Sat, 4/25/09, John Frewen-Lord /<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44842] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 2:47 AM
I agree with Jerry on this one. Both spellings are acceptable to
me, but the -re spelling makes a bit more sense as a whole (and as
Jerry points out harmonises with the rest of the world).
Still, I would suggest the -re spelling is acceptable in the US. I
don't know about the latest editions, but my copy of ASTM E 621 -
84, Standard Practice for the Use of Metric (SI) Units in Building
Design and Construction (Committee E-6 Supplement to E 380) uses the
-re spelling throughout (see attached scan).
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Jeremiah MacGregor
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:03 AM
*Subject:* [USMA:44833] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I can't believe the US is so arrogant that they have to make
such an issue over spelling. I don't see why both ways can't be
accepted. We use centre and theatre in the US, so why not litre
and metre?
Maybe it is time for the US to adopt the ISO and IEC standards.
Being different in a global market is the surest way to lose
business. A bankrupt economy doesn't have the option to go
against the grain. That is most likely the main reason the US
is bankrupt.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Patrick Moore <[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2009 12:48:35 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:44783] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Here are two answers for why to buy IEEE/ASTM SI-10 when BIPM is
free.
1. To spell meter etc., the BIPM uses the spelling –re, which
is unacceptable in edited American English. I mention
this, realizing that some readers in this group are livid
that metricians in the USA persist in opening our eggs at
the small end. But there it is, one answer.
2. Many ASTM and IEEE standards - and so (we hope) many
industry contracts - specify use of IEEE/ASTM SI-10. For
many purposes in the USA, it can achieve regulatory force
in a way that BIPM does not.
It would be nice to download IEEE/ASTM SI-10 for free.
I am not making a recommendation here, just answering a
question.. My original question, asking for the latest edition,
was bibliographic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]>
*Reply-To: *<[email protected]>
*Date: *Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
*To: *"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *[USMA:44717] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Why pay for a publication from the ANSI when the same
information is available for free from the BIPM.
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* John M. Steele <[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:01:31 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:44688] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Latest edition is 2002. Here is a link to it at ANSI:
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=SI10-2002
That edition corresponds to 7th edition of SI Brochure. I
understand it is currently being revised to latest edition of SI
Brochure and NIST SP 330. I don't know the schedule, or the
extent of revisions.
.
--- On *Wed, 4/15/09, Patrick Moore /<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: Patrick Moore <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44687] IEEE/ASTM SI-10
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 11:29 AM
What is the latest publication year/edition of IEEE/ASTM
SI-10, "Standard for the Use of the International System of
Units (SI): The Modern Metric System"? It is difficult
to find it in the ASTM catalog or website or the IEEE site:
many documents reference it but the standard itself does
not come up, for me anyway. Thanks.
